Ooof, that's quite heavy. But Ruscetti is from the NCI too. And he will chair the XMRV symposium on the 9th. So what does this mean? As long as we don't hear from him, we can of course not know for sure. But it's important what he thinks. As long as he doesn't share this view it's certainly not a fact for me. What we can probably say now is that the "official" NCI line is what we can see on this page. So it looks at least as if this group has more influence in the NCI than Ruscetti's.

Ooof, that's quite heavy. But Ruscetti is from the NCI too. And he will chair the XMRV symposium on the 9th. So what does this mean? As long as we don't hear from him, we can of course not know for sure. But it's important what he thinks. As long as he doesn't share this view it's certainly not a fact for me. What we can probably say now is that the "official" NCI line is what we can see on this page. So it looks at least as if this group has more influence in the NCI than Ruscetti's.

Click to expand...

I didn't know he was going to chair it...that is going to be a fascinating presentation...

I don't know who speaks for the NCI but you're right that means he has a minority viewpoint that's for sure.

I think this study explains why...they got ahold of some original samples and sequenced them and concluded that they all looked like the 22RV1 lab strain.

In addition, a sample of the XMRV viruses reported in the 2009 article has been cultivated from patient samples and was analyzed at NCI. In contrast to the original findings, the new data suggest it is unlikely that these XMRVs were derived from infected patients. Instead, like the other XMRVs that have been sequenced, they appear to be laboratory contaminants.

Click to expand...

So XMRV is there in the samples...but it looks like it came from a lab not from humans. They also found evidence of contamination in some of the patients they retested and when they looked again they didn't find any XMRV...Think about this...they were able to find XMRV the first time...so they can find it...but when they retested those patients taking samples that did not come from the WPI - they were unable to find it....That's strong stuff...

Using highly-sensitive XMRV DNA detection techniques (similar to those that have become the gold standard for HIV), coupled with methods to detect mouse DNA, NCI researchers tested new, independently-collected serum samples from a small selection of patients reported to be infected in the original 2009 Science publication that hypothesized a connection between XMRV and CFS. This analysis indicated significant levels of mouse DNA contamination in several of these samples; however, there was no evidence that any of the people tested a second time had been infected with XMRV.

ruscetti seemed so sure. i hope he hasnt jumped ship, too. he's the kind of guy you don't mess with lol

Click to expand...

Ruscetti probably didn't want to retract the Science study, meaning he is still sure. The 9 june event will be fascinating indeed.
And yes, the NCI is basically saying all the XMRV research belongs in the trashcan.

I think this study explains why...they got ahold of some original samples and sequenced them and concluded that they all looked like the 22RV1 lab strain.

So XMRV is there in the samples...but it looks like it came from a lab not from humans. They also found evidence of contamination in some of the patients they retested and when they looked again they didn't find any XMRV...Think about this...they were able to find XMRV the first time...so they can find it...but when they retested those patients taking samples that did not come from the WPI - they were unable to find it....That's strong stuff...

Click to expand...

There is still the ape study that showed that the virus can't be found in blood sometimes.
And the genetic varriation, if it was just from one of the viruses taken what's with all the others?
What about the theory about a common infection source like vaccines? Also doesn't sound so strange if they say theyr stuff is contaminated why not somethin they use in medicine? How they now what the genetic variation rate in this virus should be since they say its very different from HIV and HTLV?
How to explain antibodys?

i think not willing to retract the study and agreeing with all the results is something very different: science is all about making mistakes, and pointing them out in other studies. That is how progress is made. If all scientists were to retract their studies once mistakes are found, this would result in an erasing of history that is very 1984 Orwellian.
As the authors did their work in good faith, and optimally made use of the knowledge that at this point was available, they should not retract their study.